considered one person in the law. This concept of unity of personality has been changed in the law of marriage, but even when it is applied, it was recognized that there were exceptions. Therefore if the criminal case is against a person accused of causing violence to the other spouse, he or she who is the victim can give evidence for the prosecution. [See Annex, and Evidence Ordinance S.120 (3)(4)(5)] Sentencing The usual punishments recognized in our law based on the English law are imprisonment and sentencing. Whipping was allowed but it has been prohibited from 2005 by the repeal of the Act which provided for this punishment. (See Annex). The 1995 Amendment to the Penal Code modified the law on sentencing by setting a minimum sentence for sexual violence and including the concept of payment of financial compensation by the accused to the victim for injuries caused to the victim. The law was amended further in 2006 to clarify that “injuries” included “psychological” harm. (See section on Sexual Violence). Despite these clear legislative statements of the principle of law, recent judicial decisions have adopted a policy of leniency in sentencing for sexual violence. The 1995 Penal Code amendments which changed the principles of law in this area also introduced the concept of minimum sentences for sexual violence. This change was a response to the disturbing manner in which trial courts were suspending sentences in the cases of rape, considered a grave form of sexual violence to the woman’s body in the Penal Code, and the English Common law on which it was based. (See section on Fatal and Non-Fatal Injuries). However in the controversial Anuradhapura Rape Case (see Annex) the Supreme Court with Sarath Silva CJ agreeing, decided that the imposition of minimum sentences was a violation of the judicial power of the courts under the Constitution. This was despite the fact that the Constitution in Article 80 (3) and 16 does not permit the courts to review laws that have already come into force. The Anuradhapura case has resulted in trial courts returning to the practice of suspending sentences in rape cases, including even in gang rape, on various grounds that ignore the victim’s right to ask for justice through the courts for what is considered grave bodily harm in the Penal Code. It is rare that a trial court sentences a rapist to long term imprisonment provided for in the 1995 amendments. This has also led to a lack of consistency. [See Annex] In the recent Kurunegala Rape case, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case where the Attorney General appealed a suspended sentence for rape imposed by the High Court of Kurunegala. The Attorney General argued before the Court of Appeal that the earlier Anuradhapura Rape Case approach to suspending a sentence of imprisonment for rape should not be followed, as it was contrary to the law. The Court of Appeal accepted the Attorney General’s arguments, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. This case went to the Supreme Court in a further appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal decision, and said that the approach to suspended sentences in the earlier Anuradhapura Rape Case was correct. They decided that the High Court decision to suspend the sentence in the Kurunegala Rape case was correct, on the ground that the accused was taking care of the child of the 15 year old girl raped, and that he was a good father acting in the best interests of that child. [See Annex]. This Supreme Court’s decision on sentencing for rape has drawn attention to the urgent need for the Supreme Court to ensure consistency in sentencing, and clarify the approach courts should follow in sentencing for sexual violence. This will prevent the current variations where there is a strong trend to trivialize serious sexual violence, and not take it seriously. The current lenient approach as we shall see, even violates the approach to sexual violence in the Supreme Court, since rape and sexual violence have COMPENDIUM ON LAW, GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 29